cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17202407
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a bill this week to legally erase transgender people, entitled the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024.” He claimed that the bill will stop what he called the Biden administration’s attempt to “replace biological sex with dangerous radical gender ideology.”
The bill is a long list of terms and definitions, where words like “father” and “girl” are defined with the words “male” and “female.” Those two words are then defined as “an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports and utilizes [sperm or eggs for male or female, respectively] for fertilization.”
of course I hate the active reduction of freedom. But may I ask, how important is this? Will trans people be able to continue to survive? Existing and being who you believe you are seems to be the important detail which pisses then off. They can’t do anything but be explicitly rude.
Should someone decide to fight you for being trans, I will fight for + with you.
Writing this comment mildly drunk, I’m sure there’s problems with it, but what if it’s like rain off a window, you look at it and ignore it?
This is a precursor to them trying to sue trans people for “fraud” by having documents with the correct gender marker. Also, the cruelty is the point, and this is in itself cruel.
Cripes. The fuckin struggle just to survive never ends. I don’t get what people’s problem is, and at this point an convinced I never will. Fuck em.
They can also force transgender people in institutional settings (prison, college, military, etc) to be housed with the wrong gender. That can be dangerous.
Getting rid of Title IX protections is going to make surviving pretty fucking hard if you wind up with a bigoted manager who decides to fire you… Or just companies decide they don’t want to hire trans people at all.
😮💨 it kinda seems like these companies already disengage once they meet via video or in person. Generic reasons are presented, “poor for for the team” etc.
If an HR person is dumb, you’ve possibly got em dead to rights with IX and some kind of evidence. I just think it’s so crazy to disregard someone’s potential just because they want to exist as their internal self.
Over time, that particular org won’t be as successful as the one hiring candidates for effectiveness over appearance, but damn does it suck for the individual bring denied at that time.
That’s enough reason to help fight the incoming changes, as far as I’m concerned.
“They’re people” is more than enough reason.
There doesn’t need to be some arbitrary condition to be met before you decide that they’re worthy of solidarity.
